Is there somewhere that has compiled a list of recent hero picks/bans in tournaments, since we're talking about current trends? I probably won't watch the games themselves but as long the main focus of the thread is basically picks/bans it's useful information.

Is there somewhere that has compiled a list of recent hero picks/bans in tournaments, since we're talking about current trends? I probably won't watch the games themselves but as long the main focus of the thread is basically picks/bans it's useful information.

Since TI2 wouldn't be very up to date list since 6.75 and 6.76 were after it, and the trends have shifted quite a lot lately.

http://dota-academy.com/tournament/68/ is just for this Dreamhack Winter (though the finals aren't uploaded yet) but you can also just filter by date. I don't suggest looking further back than mid-october though.

i wonder whos going to pick NTH
even now 2players without lan exp they looks soo strong imagine whats going to happen once they start bootcamping hard

I imagine they did practice some for DH, but apparently they already have a 'secret' sponsor of some kind, maybe just some person who sponsored them to DH and so on. Would be fun to see Loda carry that SK tag again.

Since TI2 wouldn't be very up to date list since 6.75 and 6.76 were after it, and the trends have shifted quite a lot lately.

http://dota-academy.com/tournament/68/ is just for this Dreamhack Winter (though the finals aren't uploaded yet) but you can also just filter by date. I don't suggest looking further back than mid-october though.

Nice to see EG doing well, it's about time there was some America representation at the top, imo :x
Only ever see EG and coL in American pubs and was just beginning to think we were bad at DotA.

They played really, really well in the playoffs, their victory over Na´Vi was really solid even if they were sloppy in the group stages. NTH were one of my tournament favorites, but I didn't know how they'd come back after losing the first game... until they upped their game with their level 1 Roshan baits and whatnot. Still, even EG were behind a lot in game 3, they got really close to making a turnaround few times when they started forcing buybacks several times from NTH and almost took a rax several times. EG did impress me a lot in the aspect that even after they took a hit or were behind they always seemed to know exactly what they had to do to get back - even when behind they took the fight to enemy base and damn near won it.

Not my fault you can't think like a rational human being. No shit I was talking about morphling, that's what the whole conversation was about.

I'm sorry, do you really feel like this part is warranted?

Originally Posted by MasterOfInvocation

You suddenly pointing how (Wrongly so) how I could prove my point with statistics..I was just replying how no matter what information I would bring, someone would find it invalid.

Like you conveniently ignored the statistics provided by Worer and Hermanni? I can only speak for myself, but I would not overlook actual statistics used as proof. Which you provided none. At any point. Funny how that goes.

Like you conveniently ignored the statistics provided by Worer and Hermanni? I can only speak for myself, but I would not overlook actual statistics used as proof. Which you provided none. At any point. Funny how that goes.

I do feel it was warranted. Now stop responding to me, you're obviously skipping half the posts that doesn't suite you, since I did actually provide evidence how statistics in pubs doesn't mean anything.

And to the statistics in over-all competitive games doesn't mean anything either(the link Worer provided). In that morph had 52% winrate together with Naga, who also got nerfed.. Yet treant protector who had 60% winrate got a buff. So these numbers mean shit. You have to divide the competitive scene into tiers, not just EVERYONE in the same pool of statistics.

Edit: According to Worer's link, Morphling had a 61% winrate as a hard carry, and 81% winrate when he was solo mid.

Edit: According to Worer's link, Morphling had a 61% winrate as a hard carry, and 81% winrate when he was solo mid.

You see how easy it is to back up your claims? Would you argue that Morphling was too strong in the middle lane? As a hard carry? You now have something to back this up rather than "1v4 GG" or "too strong". This gives your post credibility, and people will be more likely to think of them as actual arguments from someone who knows what he is talking about, rather than inane babble.

I'm not skipping posts, I'm just not quoting them or responding to them. I suppose that is skipping depending on how you look at it. Anything in specific you would like me personally to respond to? Out of curiosity, what evidence did you provide that shows how stats in public games do not matter? I'm not refuting your point, just interested.

You see how easy it is to back up your claims? Would you argue that Morphling was too strong in the middle lane? As a hard carry? You now have something to back this up rather than "1v4 GG" or "too strong". This gives your post credibility, and people will be more likely to think of them as actual arguments from someone who knows what he is talking about, rather than inane babble.

I'm not skipping posts, I'm just not quoting them or responding to them. I suppose that is skipping depending on how you look at it. Anything in specific you would like me personally to respond to? Out of curiosity, what evidence did you provide that shows how stats in public games do not matter? I'm not refuting your point, just interested.

I wrote the 1v4 as an example of how maybe someone could think it is fine since both teams can pick him up, then it's "balanced" and he can be banned.. I have heard that argument before.

Hermanni's argument was that Morph was fine before since he had 53% winrate in pubs, and now to horrible 38% winrate in pubs. Then I said that AM and Broodmother who are both competitive are actually only right above him with a slightly higher winrate. And just to come with another example, Magnus who won all but two games in DHW has a 48% winrate in pubs.

Then Hermanni said that only Morph was so bad that he is terrible in pubs, and doesn't get to see competitive play(Meaning that either a hero is good in pubs, in compeitive play or both). Then I gave a list of other heros that probably see less competitive play than Morph(who I saw picked in G1 as a serious pick, by Orange I believe?), while still having slightly-to-far less than average 50% winrate in pubs.

And I don't think the morphling stats are legit, since EVERYONE played him as a hard carry, and 80% of the games was solo mid. Then why the low 52% overall winrate, but when on those positions(hard carry, solo mid) he has insane high winrates? Only stats of one game playing as position 2, which he won..There are tons of games missing, unless they only record his role and lane position in some games? Then which? High-end compeitive ones like TI2?

I think the stats are off, that's why I didn't mention it.

To close this off I am actually not saying Morph didn't get nerfed too hard, but I am sticking with he needed a nerf.

Win rates, both in pubs and professional scene, mean nothing. I don't see how that proves anything. Actually that would mean a lot if game run by some sort of AI but, well, it's played by different players with different skills and there is also something called "strategy".

Win rates by specific heroes only matter if you start noticing a trend in first pick win percentage going up. If first pick wins ~51% of the time and loses ~49% of the time, individual heroes probably don't matter so much. If a hero like Magnus ends up having a 95% win rate when picked and you suddenly notice that first pick wins 60-65% of the time, and, oh hey, Magnus was picked first a lot, you have a problem.

Win rates, both in pubs and professional scene, mean nothing. I don't see how that proves anything. Actually that would mean a lot if game run by some sort of AI but, well, it's played by different players with different skills and there is also something called "strategy".

They average out, so they do matter. The winrates of teams are more interesting than the winrates of heroes, though. The Radiant has a higher win-percentage in professional games. This is largely attributed to the Radiant most often having first pick. Since 6.75, the Radiant has achieved 162 wins compared to the Dire's 129 (166/126 (first/second pick respectively)). Hero winrates matter little when you do not divide them into skill brackets, however. I suppose you do have a point because win rates alone say nothing important.

Hero winrates matter little when you do not divide them into skill brackets, however. I suppose you do have a point because win rates alone say nothing important.

What do they mean even if you divide them into skill brackets? We can say "Ursa is balanced because he doesn't do well in pro games and is never picked," but I think most people would agree that Ursa stomps average skill public games which are 90% of the world. Is it right that we balance around the professional scene and the vast majority of everyone else can just deal with it? Or do we balance around the majority at the expense of the esport scene? Ideally, we'd like to find heroes who perform well in all brackets, looking at win rates going up or down as the skill division increases generally just gives you a graph of how difficult a hero is to play.

They do not mean much individually (I would however really enjoy to see such statistics), but I don't fully agree with the last part of your post. From my (somewhat limited) experience, most heroes are pretty straight forward to play. Sure, they're not all as intuitive as Skeleton King or Ursa, but I wouldn't say there's that many heroes which could not be played to at least a passable degree by your average public player. I guess what I'm trying to say is most of the heroes are fairly easy. Across the board win rates get incredibly skewered when you do not see your average pub stomping heroes in professional games (and vice versa), hence them not being a good indicator of how strong a hero is.

I had this discussion earlier with the captain of my clan, it's interesting. I personally don't think that the game should be entirely balanced around the professional scene, or even the high-tier players at large (hence why captains mode is great imo). I can't speak much for public games, as most games I play are lobbies - and the games I watch are either replays or progames/public games with progamers. It does make sense to balance the game around the most average rating, but also around the highest. I am just happy IceFraud is doing his thing..

So far so good I suppose. Now if he can just get the queue times under fifteen minutes for me...

Trying to keep the game competitive for the spectator sport part of the game and still easy to learn and fair for the entry level players is a hard job, you see this struggle with Riot trying to pump heroes out of the machine every few weeks. How do you keep a hero "shallow" enough that anyone can pick it up and learn it in a few days without making it so easy/good that it changes the entire game? I don't envy that part of design.